derfunkatron

I think strategically used tariffs (i.e. used in trade negotiations for specific sectors or items, not unilateral tariffs) can convince a country to export items at a price that benefits one country more than the other, usually in tandem with an agreement to reciprocate. Basically, countries agree to trade at certain rates or exclusively sell. Tariffs are the “bad cop” of trade negotiations.

The tariff isn’t what lowers the price, it’s the threat of the tariff that lowers the price or keeps it stable.

Imagine Canada exports maple widgets at $10 a piece to reflect the true cost of manufacture. The US says that is too high, our people can’t afford that price once it’s on the shelves, so how about you export them for $8? To sweeten the deal, we’ll export freedom widgets to you at reduced cost.

Canada responds saying $8 for maple widgets is too low, $10 is firm and we’ll deal with the current cost of freedom widgets. The US threatens a targeted tariff on maple widgets at 25% which doesn’t affect the price of maple widgets in Canada or their sale price to importers in the US, but importers in the US have to pay $2.50 in tax on top of the purchase cost for maple widgets which drives up the cost for US consumers.

This results in the price of the item increasing in the US $4.50 over the price determined to be “affordable” which will result in reduced imports and reduced purchases of maple widgets by consumers. Canada now has to find somewhere else to sell their maple widgets since the US isn’t buying at the same rate which drives down the value of maple widgets in Canada.

And if the US was feeling particularly vengeful at being denied their cheap steady supply of maple widgets, they could convince other countries to not buy Canadian widgets at all or impose a blanket ban on all Canadian goods (see: how the US obliterated the economy of Cuba because of “communism” which was really just Cuba not wanting to be the US’s sugar plantation anymore).

Canada will evaluate this and determine that selling maple widgets is essential to their economy and less profit for their maple widget industry is an agreeable trade compared to the US not buying at all.

but surely him rising again is more important than his death?

Depends on how fixated a faith is on the “sacrifice of the Lamb.” There’s one interpretation that Jesus’ suffering and death is what appeased God and fulfilled the prophecy and ended the law of Moses. If you’re the kind of person that buys into God being the sort of deity that wants to kill himself in order to satisfy his own bloodlust, then yeah, I could see Christ’s death being the more important part.

Surely the resurrection should be emphasized as the result, but the death is what God demanded to atone for the sins of the world. The resurrection was just proof that he held up his end of the bargain.

I think that the Christ story suffers from the audience knowing details about the story that the characters don’t to the point that the big miracle at the end falls flat. Everyone just ends up focusing on the mechanics of Christs death rather than its purpose.

I like your perspective and wish Christianity aligned more with your post than whatever it’s doing now.

I’m not Christian, but I have observed that the worship of the cross and Christ's death is directly tied to the theological idea of salvation, especially with evangelicals. If his death is the single most important part of your faith, then the cross becomes a symbol and reminder that you’re saved and not going to hell. It was primed to become a symbol and eventually an idol.

I also think historically the cross as a symbol for Christianity comes from the Greek letter chi (x) in the spelling of Christ. “X-tians” was a shorthand form way before the “taking Christ out of Christmas” nonsense.

But to the original point of the Klan burning the cross: I’ve read that they argue that cross burning is a medieval European affirmation of faith, something that is doing double duty of arguing that it’s an expression of their faith and connecting them to their “racial” roots.

I know this. You know this. The judges know this. The jury knows this.

This does damage by subjecting the teachers to suspensions, trials, legal fees, etc. to the point that they take a plea bargain or resign. It makes the schools hyper-sensitive.

If the courts don’t throw these cases out immediately, then the tactic worked.

The New Colossus was released during Trump’s first term and it was really cathartic to play during the shit storm. The game even pissed off the “alt-right.” The New Order and The Old Blood are much better at “endless destruction of Nazis” though.

Might be time to reinstall and play through them again.

How many people comply without being physically forced is what determines how much power he truly has.

That’s why the reduction of protections for federal employees was so important to implementing this phase. A lot of people have already been fired or reassigned which makes it really difficult for them to “do” anything.

Right on. I was just outlining how they’d probably make it personal against the teachers.

It works like this:

• Teach at a public school
• That school receives funding directly or indirectly from federal programs under the executive branch, including the Department of Education
• DEI support disqualifies institutions from receiving Federal funds
• Supporting DEI and trans rights while receiving Federal funds counts as defrauding the US government
• DOJ takes up the case

While EOs are not laws, they have the potential to do massive amounts of damage because most of the government runs on agencies under control of the Executive. And while universities and public schools are not federal, they receive shit tons of funds through grants, contracts, and subsidies from a wide array of federal agencies (see: academic panic at the NSF and NIH halting grant review and funding as a result of Trump’s recent orders).

Well, true. I wasn’t exactly implying that Trump was reading a history book and learned all about McKinley. More like he said, “we should be strong and take land that we want and undo everything Obama and Biden did and tax our enemies and have gold everything,” and someone replied, “oh, sounds like McKinley.” To which Trump replies, “Obama renamed a great president?”

You’re probably right about it just being petty, but…

President McKinley also annexed territory (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines, Cuba, etc.), implemented insane tariffs, and pushed to keep the US on the gold standard.

Looks like Jackson isn’t the only president that Trump idolizes.

Sounds plausible. The quote I always use is “LIIIINE!” from the dinner table scene where the camera jumps back and forth between them but they don’t speak for like 5 minutes.

Is this enshittification or the convergence of objects into the same design due to regulation/demand/function/etc. (I’m sure there’s a name for this but I can’t recall it)?

Cell phones are certainly enshittified with planned obsolescence or incompatible text messaging protocols or ‘walled gardens’, but what else should a cell phone be besides a cellular networked pocket computer with a camera?

What features (besides a dedicated headphone jack) is missing from a modern cell phone that your old one had?